CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RETAINING WALLS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Retaining walls are used to retain earth or other material in vertical (or nearly vertical) position
at locations where an abrupt change in ground level occurs. However, retaining walls can also be
constructed for aesthetic landscaping purposes.
Such walls are usually required to resist a combination of earth and hydrostatic loadings. The
fundamental requirement is that the wall is capable of holding the retained material in place
without undue movement arising from deflection, overturning sliding. Detailed guidance
concerning design, detailing and construction is given in BS 8002 which should be consulted when
designed structures of this type.

Code of Practice BS 8007 recommends modifications to the detailed Limit State design
requirements of BS 8110, with the principal features being:

a. Use of 𝛾𝑓 = 1.4 for liquid loads.

b. Use of concrete grade C35 A (this has a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.55 and minimum
cement content of 325 kg/m3 – that is, durability performance comparable to grade C 40).
c. Exposure classification of internal members and both faces of members exposed to liquid
on at least one face is severe, giving minimum cover of 40 mm. If a more severe condition
exists, BS 8110 durability requirements may dominate.
d. Maximum crack width limited to 0.2 mm unless the aesthetic appearance is critical, when
0.1 mm is required to avoid staining of the concrete.
e. Maximum bar spacing of 300 mm.
f. Anchorage bond stresses for straight horizontal bars in sections subjected to direct tension
must be reduced to 70 per cent of the usual values.
g. At least 75 mm blinding concrete is required below ground slabs.

4.2 TYPES OF RETAINING WALL

Concrete retaining walls may be considered in terms of three basic: (1) gravity, (2) counterfort, (3)
cantilever (4) buttress walls. Within these groups many common variations exist, for example
cantilever walls may have additional supporting ties into the retained material.

The structural action of each type is fundamentally different, but the techniques used in analysis,
design and detailed are those normally used for concrete structures.

i. Gravity Walls
These are usually constructed of mass concrete, with reinforcement included in the faces to restrict
thermal and shrinkage cracking. As illustrated in Fig. 4.1, reliance is to place on self-weight to

1
satisfy stability requirements both in respect of overturning and sliding. They may typically
support retained height up to 3m.

It is generally taken as a requirement that under working conditions the resultant of the self-weight
and overturning forces must lie within the middle at the interface of the base and soil. This ensure
that uplift is avoided at this interface of the base and soil. Friction effects which resist sliding are
thus maintained across the entire base.

Bending, shear, and deflections of such walls are usually insignificant in view of the large effective
depth of the section. Distribution steel to control thermal cracking is necessary however, and great
care must be taken to reduce hydration temperatures by mix design, construction procedure and
curing techniques.

Figure 4.1: Gravity wall

ii. Counterfort Walls

This type of construction will probably be used where the overall height of wall is too large to be
constructed economically either in mass concrete or as a cantilever. Wall and base are tied together
at intervals by counterfort or bracing walls. Economical for high wall usually above 6 –7 m of
backfill.

The basis of design counterfort walls is that the earth pressures act on a thin wall which spans
horizontally between the massive counterforts (Figure 4.2). These must be sufficiently large to
provide the necessary dead load for stability requirements, possibly with the aid of the weight of
backfill on an enlarged base. The counterforts must be designed with reinforcement to act as
cantilevers to resist the considerable bending moments that are concentrated at these point.

The spacing of counterforts will be governed by the above factors, coupled with the need to
maintain a satisfactory span-depth ratio on the wall slab, which must be designed for bending as a
continuous slab. The advantage of this form of construction is that the volume of concrete involved
is considerably reduced, thereby removing many of the problems of large pours, and reducing the

2
quantities of excavation. Balanced against this must be considered the generally increased
shuttering complication and the probable need for increased reinforcement.

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.2: Counterfort wall

iii. Cantilever Walls

These are designed as vertical cantilevers spanning from a large rigid base which often relies on
the weight of backfill on the base to provide stability. Two forms of this construction are illustrated
in Figure 4.3. In both cases, stability calculations follow similar procedures to those gravity walls
to ensure that resultant force lies within the middle third of the base and that overturning and
sliding requirements are met. They are typically economic up to heights of about 8m.

3
Figure 4.3: Cantilever Walls

iv. Buttress Walls

Similar to counterfort wall, but bracing is constructed in front of the wall. The bracing is in
compression. It is more efficient than counterforts, but no usable space in front of the wall.

(a)

(b)
Figure 4.4: Buttress Walls

4
4.3 EARTH PRESSURE
Earth pressure is the pressure exerted by the retaining material on the retaining wall. This pressure
tends to deflect the wall outward, as shown in Figure 4.5.

4.3.1 Types of Earth Pressure:

Active earth pressure or earth pressure (Pa) and

Passive earth pressure (Pp).
Active earth pressure tends to deflect the wall away from the backfill.

4.3.2 Factors Affecting Earth Pressure

Earth pressure depends on type of backfill, the height of wall and the soil conditions.

Soil conditions: The different soil conditions are

• Dry leveled back fill

• Moist leveled backfill

• Submerged leveled backfill

• Leveled backfill with uniform surcharge

• Backfill with sloping surface

Figure 4.5: Variation of Earth pressure

5
4.3.3 Analysis for Dry Back Fills
The forces acting on a retaining wall is shown in Figure 4.6.
Maximum pressure at any height, 𝑃 = 𝐾𝑎 𝜌𝑔ℎ
Total pressure at any height from top,
1 𝐾𝑎 𝜌𝑔ℎ2
𝑃𝑎 = [𝐾𝑎 𝜌𝑔ℎ]ℎ = 𝐸𝑞. 4.1
2 2

Bending moment at any height:

ℎ 𝐾𝑎 𝜌𝑔ℎ3
𝑀 = 𝑃𝑎 𝑥 = 𝐸𝑞. 4.2
3 6

𝐾𝑎 𝜌𝑔𝐻 2
∴ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝑃𝑎 = 𝐸𝑞. 4.3
2

𝐾𝑎 𝜌𝑔𝐻 3
∴ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚, 𝑀𝑎 = 𝐸𝑞. 4.4
6

Where, Ka = Coefficient of active earth pressure

(1 − sin φ)
= = 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 𝜑
(1 + sin φ)
1
= , 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝐾𝑝
𝜑 = 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒
𝜌 = 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙
1
𝐼𝑓 𝜑 = 30𝑜 , 𝐾𝑎 = 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐾𝑝 = 3. 𝑇ℎ𝑢𝑠 𝐾𝑎 𝑖𝑠 9 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝐾𝑝
3

Figure 4.6: Forces acting on retaining walls

6
4.4 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The design of retaining walls may be split into three fundamental stages: (1) stability analysis-
ultimate limit state, (2) bearing pressure analysis-serviceability limit state, and (3) member design
and detailing-ultimate and serviceability limit states. BS 8002 requires design to allow for a
minimum surcharge surface load of 10 kN/m2 as well as unplanned excavation in front of the wall
not less than 0.5m depth (and 10 per cent of retained height for cantilever walls). Allowance must
also be made for imposed loads acting on the surface of the retained soil (these are often considered
as equivalent surcharge loads). It may also be necessary in both analysis and design to consider a
range of possible moisture and compaction conditions for the retained soil.

I. Stability

Under the action of the loads corresponding to the ultimate limit state, a retaining wall must be
stable in terms of resistance to overturning and sliding. This is demonstrated by the simple case of
a gravity wall as shown in Figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7: Forces and pressures on a gravity wall

Overturning
Overturning occurs because of unbalanced moment. The critical conditions for stability are when
a maximum horizontal force acts with a minimum vertical load. To guard against a stability failure,
it is usual to apply conservative factors of safety to the force and loads. The value given in table
4.1 are appropriate to strength calculations but a value of 𝛾𝑓 = 1.6 or higher should be used for
stability calculations.

If this force is predominantly hydrostatic and well defined, a factor of 1.4 may be used. A partial
factor of safety of 𝛾𝑓 = 1.0 is usually applied to dead load Gk.

For resistance to overturning, moments would normally be taken about the toe of the base, point
A on Figure 4.7, thus the requirement is that:

7
 1.0𝐺𝑘 𝑥 ≥ 𝛾𝑓 𝐻𝑘 𝑦 𝐸𝑞. 4.5

Sliding
Resistance to sliding is provided by friction between the underside of the base and ground, and
thus is also related to total self-weight Gk. Resistance provided by the passive earth pressure on
the front face of the base may make some contribution, but since this material is often backfilled
against the face, this resistance cannot be guaranteed and is usually ignored. Thus, if the coefficient
of friction between base and soil is 𝜇, the total friction force will be given by 𝜇𝐺𝑘 for the length of
wall of weight Gk: and the requirement is that:

1.0𝜇𝐺𝑘 ≥ 𝛾𝑓 𝐻𝑘 𝐸𝑞. 4.6

Where Hk is the horizontal force on the length of wall.

Table 4.1: Partial factor of safety for loading

If this criteria is not met, heel beam may be used, and the force due to the passive earth pressure
over the face area of the heel may be included in resisting the force. The partial load factor 𝛾𝑓 on
the heel beam resisting force should be taken as 1.0 to give the worst condition. To ensure the
proper action of a heel beam, the front face must be cast directly against sound, undisturbed
material, and it is important that this is not overlooked during construction. Note that if a heel
beam is provided, the force acting on the back of the wall must be calculated to include active
pressures on the back of the heel beam, as shown in example 4.1.

In considering cantilever walls, a considerable amount of backfill is often placed on top of the
base, and this taken into account in the stability analysis. The forces acting in this case are shown

8
in Figure 4.8. In addition to Gk and Hk there is an additional vertical load VK due to material above
the base, acting a distance q from the toe. The worst condition for stability will be when this is at
a minimum; therefore a partial load factor 𝛾𝑓 = 1.0 is appropriate. The stability requirements then
become:

1.0𝐺𝑘 𝑥 + 1.0𝑉𝑘 𝑞 ≥ 𝛾𝑓 𝐻𝑘 𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑞. 4.7

𝜇(1.0𝐺𝑘 + 1.0𝑉𝑘 ) ≥ 𝛾𝑓 𝐻𝑘 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑞. 4.8

Figure 4.8: Forces on a cantilever wall

When a heel beam is provided the additional passive resistance of the earth HP must be included
in Equation 4.8 together with the weight of soil in area ABCD below the wall (see Figure 4.8).
Sliding resistance is then calculated at the level of plane BC. BS 8002 also suggest that sliding
checks should consider the inclined plane AC.
Stability analysis, as describe here, will normally suffice. However, if there is doubt about the
foundation material in the region of the wall or the reliability of loading values, it may be necessary
to perform a full slip-circle analysis, using techniques common to soil mechanics, or to use
increased factor of safety.

9
ii. Bearing pressure analysis

As with foundations, the bearing pressures underneath retaining walls are assessed on the basis of
the serviceability limit state when determining the size of base that is required. The analysis will
be similar to that discussed in section 3.2 with the foundation being subject to the combined effects
of an eccentric vertical load, coupled with an overturning moment.

Considering a unit length of the cantilever wall (Figure 4.8) the resultant moment about the
centroidal axis of the base is:
𝑀 = 𝛾𝑓1 𝐻𝑘 𝑦 + 𝛾𝑓2 𝐺𝑘 (𝐷/2 − 𝑥) + 𝑦𝑓3 𝑉𝑘 (𝐷/2 − 𝑞) 𝐸𝑞. 4.9

And the vertical load is

𝑁 = 𝛾𝑓2 𝐺𝑘 + 𝑦𝑓3 𝑉𝑘 𝐸𝑞. 4.10

Where in this case for the serviceability limit state the partial factors of safety are
𝑦𝑓1 = 𝑦𝑓2 = 𝑦𝑓3 = 1.0

The distribution of bearing pressures will be as shown in the figure, provided the effective
eccentricity lies within the ‘middle third’ of the base, that is:
𝑀 𝐷
≤
𝑁 6
The maximum bearing pressure is that given by
𝑁 𝑀 𝐷
𝑝1 = + ×
𝐷 𝐼 2
Where I = 𝐼 = 𝐷3 /12. Therefore:
𝑁 6𝑀
𝑝1 = + 2 𝐸𝑞. 4.11
𝐷 𝐷
And
𝑁 6𝑀
𝑝2 = − 2 𝐸𝑞. 4.12
𝐷 𝐷
(ii) Member design and detailing
As with foundations, the design of bending and shear reinforcement is based on an analysis of the
loads for the ultimate limit state, with corresponding bearing pressures. BS 8002 suggests that in
some cases it may be appropriate to design on the basis of serviceability values pressures (𝑦𝑓 =
1.0) but BS 8110 recommends normal values of 𝑦𝑓 associated with the ultimate limit state. Gravity
walls will seldom require bending or shear steel, while the walls in counterfort and cantilever
construction will be design as slabs. The design of counterforts will generally be similar to that of
a cantilever beam unless they are massive.

10
With a cantilever-type retaining wall the stem is designed to resist the moment caused by the
force𝑦𝑓 𝐻𝑓 , with 𝑦𝑓 = 1.4 or larger, depending on how accurately load may be predicted. For
preliminary sizing, the thickness of the wall may be taken as 80mm per meter depth of backfill

The thickness of the base is usually of the same order as that of the stem. The heel and toe must
be designed to resist the moments due to the upward earth bearing pressures and the downward
weight of the soil and base. The soil-bearing pressures are calculated from Equations 4.9 to 4.12,
provided the resultant of the horizontal and vertical forces lies within the ‘middle third’. Should
the lie outside the ‘middle third’, then the bearing pressures should be calculated using equation
10.4. The partial factors of safety 𝑦𝑓1 , 𝑦𝑓2 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑦𝑓3 should be taken to provide a combination which
gives the critical design condition.

Reinforcement detailing must follow the general rules for slabs and beams as appropriate.
Particular of reinforcement to limit shrinkage and thermal cracking. Gravity walls are particularly
vulnerable because of the large concrete pours that are generally involved, and these should be
treated in the manner described in section 4.1 for thick sections.
Reinforcement to thermal and shrinkage movement should be reduced to a minimum; however,
this is counteracted in the construction of bases by the need for good friction between the base and
soil; thus a sliding layer is not possible. Reinforcement in the bases must thus be adequate to
control the cracking caused by a high degree of restraint. Long walls retained by the rigid bases
are particularly susceptible to cracking during thermal movement due to loss hydration heat, and
detailing must attempt to distribute these cracks to ensure acceptable widths. Complete vertical
movement joints must be provided, and the methods used for the design of joints for water-
retaining structures can be used. These joints will often incorporate a shear key to prevent
differential movement of adjacent sections of wall, and water bars and sealers should be used as
shown in Figure 4.9a.

Figure 4.9: Complete movement joints

The back faces of retaining walls will usually be subject to hydrostatic forces from groundwater.
This may be reduced by the provision of a drainage path at the face of the wall. It is usual practice
to provide such a drain by a layer of rubble or porous blocks as shown in Figure 4.10, with pipes
11
to remove the water, often through to the front of the wall. In addition to reducing the hydrostatic
pressure on the wall, the likelihood of leakage through the wall is reduced, and water is also less
likely to reach and damage the soil beneath the foundations of the wall.

Figure 4.10: Drainage layer

The following example illustrates typical procedures for one particular set of soil conditions. In
practice it may be necessary to consider both drained and un-drained conditions.
EXAMPLE 4.1: Design of a retaining wall
The cantilever retaining wall shown in Figure 4.11 supports a granular material of bulk density
1700 kg/m3, and the allowable bearing pressure is 110kN/m2. It is required to:
1. Check the stability of the wall
2. Determine the actual bearing pressures, and

3. Design the bending reinforcement using high-yield steel, 𝑓𝑦 = 460N/mm2 and grade 35
concrete.

Figure 4.11:

12
(a) Stability
Horizontal force: it is assumed that the coefficient of active pressure Ka = 0.33, for this granular
material. So that pressure due to the retained material is given by

𝑝𝑎 = 𝑘𝑎 𝑝𝑔ℎ
Where ρ is the density of the backfill and h is the depth considered. Thus at the underside of the
base AB:
𝑝𝑎 = 0.33 × 1700 × 10−3 × 9.81 × 4.9

= 27.0 kN/m2
Allowing for the minimum required surcharge of 10kN/m2, an additional horizontal pressure:
𝑝𝑠 = 𝐾𝑎 × 10𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 = 3.3𝑘𝑁/𝑚2

Acts uniformly over the whole depth h.

Therefore the horizontal force on 1m length of wall is:
𝐻𝑘 = 0.5𝑝𝑎 ℎ + 𝑝𝑠 ℎ = 0.5 × 27.0 × 4.9 + 3.3 × 4.9 = 82.3 𝑘𝑁

Vertical loads
1
𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑙 = (0.4 + 0.3) × 4.5 × 24 = 37.8𝑘𝑁
2
𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 = 0.4 × 3.4 × 24 = 32.6
𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ = 2.2 × 4.5 × 1700 × 10−3 𝑥 9.81 = 165.1
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 = 2.2 𝑥 10 = 22

Total = 257.5kN
For stability calculations a partial factor of safety of 1.6 is used for the lateral loadings, while 1.4
will be used for strength calculations.

(i) Sliding
For Equation 4.8 it is necessary that:

𝜇(1.0𝐺𝑘 + 𝑉𝑘 ) ≥ 𝛾𝑓 𝐻𝑓 For no heel beam

Assuming a value of coefficient of friction 𝜇 = 0.45

Frictional resisting force = 0.45 × 1.0 × 257.5 = 115.8𝑘𝑁
Sliding force = 1.6 × 82.3 = 131.7𝑘𝑁
Since the sliding force exceeds the frictional force, resistance must also be provided by the
passive earth pressure acting against a heel beam and this force is given by:

13
 𝐻𝑝 = 𝛾𝑓 × 0.5𝑘𝑝 𝑝𝑔𝑎2

Where 𝑘𝑝 is the coefficient of passive, assumed to be 3.0 for this granular material, and a is the
depth of the heel below the 0.5m ‘trench’ allowance in front of the base. Therefore:
𝐻𝑝 = 1.0 × 0.5 × 3.0 × 1700 × 10−3 × 9.81 × 0.52 = 6.3𝑘𝑁

Sliding must now be considered on a plane at the level of the underside of the heel beam. Thus:

𝜌𝑎 = 0.33 × 1700 × 10−3 × 9.81 × 5.5 = 30.3𝑘𝑁/𝑚2

And 𝐻𝑘 = 0.5 × 30.3 × 5.5 + 3.3 × 5.5 = 101.5𝑘𝑁

Vertical loads are also increased by weight of the soil + heel beam
= 0.6 × (1700 × 10−3 × 9.81 × 2.9 + 24 × 0.5)𝑘𝑁 = 36.2𝑘𝑁

Thus taking 𝜇 = 0.58 at this level (= tan ∅ 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 ∅ = 30° )

Resisting force = 0.58(257.5 + 36.2) + 6.3 = 176.6kN

And sliding force = 1.6 × 101.5 = 162.4𝑘𝑁

Thus the sliding requirement is satisfied.

ii. Overturning
Taking moments about point A at the edge of the toe and ignoring the heel beam, at the ultimate
limit state

Overturning moment= 𝛾𝑓 (0.5𝑝𝑎 ℎ2 /3 + 𝑝𝑠 ℎ2 /2)

= 1.6(0.5 × 27 × 4.92 /3 + 3.3 × 4.92 /3

= 236.2

Restraining moment = 1.0(37.8 × 1.0 + 32.6 × 1.7 + 165.1 × 2.3 + 10 × 2.2 × 2.3)

=523.6kN m
Thus the criterion for overturning is comfortably satisfied.
(𝒃). Bearing pressures

From Equations 4.11 and 4.12 the bearing pressures are given by:
𝑁 6𝑀
𝑃= ±
𝑀 𝐷2
Where M is the moment about the base center-line. Therefore, ignoring the heel beam

14
 4.9 4.9
𝑀 = 0.5 × 27 × 4.9 × + 3.3 × 4.9 × + 37.8(1.7 − 1.0) + 165.1(1.7 − 2.3)
3 2
+ 22(1.7 − 2.3)

𝑀 = 108 + 39.6 + 26.5 – 99.1 − 13.2 = 61.8𝑘𝑁 𝑚

Therefore:
257.5 6 × 61.8
Maximum bearing pressure 𝑝1 = +
3.4 3.42
= 75.7 + 32.1 = 107.8 kN/m2 ˂ 110 kN/m2.
Which is less than the allowable.
(𝒄). Bending reinforcement

i. Wall

Horizontal force = 𝛾𝑓 0.5𝑘𝑎 𝑝𝑔ℎ2 + 𝑦𝑓 𝑝𝑠 ℎ

=1.4 × 0.5 × 0.33 × 1700 × 10−3 × 9.81 × 4.52 + 1.4 × 3.3 × 4.5
=78.0 + 20.8 = 98.8kN
Considering the effective span, the maximum moment is
4.5 4.5
𝑀 = 78.0 (0.2 + ) + 20.8 (0.2 + ) = 184𝑘𝑁 𝑚
3 2
𝑀 184 × 106
= = 0.05
𝑏𝑑2 𝑓𝑐𝑢 1000 × 3302 × 35
For which 𝑙𝑎 = 0.94. Therefore:

184 × 106
𝐴𝑠 = = 1357𝑚𝑚2 /𝑚
0.94 × 330 × 0.95 × 460
Provide T20 bars at 200 mm centers.

ii. Base
The bearing pressure are obtained from Equations 4.9 to 4.12. The critical partial factors of the
safety are:

𝛾𝑓1 = 1.4 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝛾𝑓2 = 𝛾𝑓3 = 1.0

Using the figures from part (b) of this example, the moment about the base center-line is

𝑀 = 𝛾𝑓1 × (108 + 39.6) + 𝛾𝑓2 × 26.5 − 𝛾𝑓3 × (99.1 + 13.2)

15
 =120.8 kN m
And

𝑁 = 𝛾𝑓2 (37.8 + 32.6) + 𝛾𝑓3 × (1651.1 + 22)

= 257.5 kN
Therefore
257.5 6 × 120.8
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝1 = + 2
= 76 + 63 = 139 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
3.4 3.4
𝑝2 = 76 − 63 = 13𝑘𝑁/𝑚2
And in Figure 4.11:

𝑝3 = 13 + (139 − 13)2.2/3.4 = 95 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2

Heel
Taking moments about the stem center-line for the vertical loads and the bearing pressures:
2.2
𝑀 = 𝛾𝑓2 𝑥 32.6 𝑥 1.3 𝑥 + 𝛾𝑓3 𝑥 (165.1 + 22) 𝑥 1.3 − 13 𝑥 2.2 𝑥 1.3
3.4
2.2
− (95 − 13) 𝑥 𝑥 0.93
2
M = 27.42 + 243.23 -37.18 – 83.39 = 150 kNm.
Where 𝛾𝑓2 and 𝛾𝑓3 = 1.

Therefore:
150 𝑥 106
𝐴𝑠 = = 1095 𝑚𝑚2 /𝑚
0.95 𝑥 460 𝑥 0.95 𝑥 330
Provide T20 bars at 200 mm centers, top steel.

Toe
Taking moment about the stem center-line:
0.8
𝑀 ≈ 𝛾𝑓2 𝑥 32.6 𝑥 0.6 𝑥 − 𝛾𝑓3𝑥 139 𝑥 0.8 𝑥 0.6 = 62 𝑘𝑁𝑚
3.4
(Note that for this wall the design moment for the toe would be marginally higher with 𝛾𝑓2 = 𝛾𝑓3
= 1.4 throughout.)

16
 62 𝑥 106
𝐴𝑠 = = 452 𝑚𝑚2 /𝑚
0.95 𝑥 460 𝑥 0.95 𝑥 330
The minimum area for this, and for the longitudinal distribution steel which is also required in
the wall and the base is:
As = 0.13 x 1000 x 400 = 520 mm2/m
Thus, provide T12 bars at 200 mm centers, bottom and distribution steel.
Also steel should be provided in the compression face of the wall in order to prevent cracking –
say, T10 bars at 200 mm centers each way.
Bending reinforcement is required in the heel beam to resist the moment due to the passive
pressure. This reinforcement would probably be in the form of close links.

17